AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Hybrid Mode)
Oral Judgment : Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial):
The Appellant who happens to be the Petitioner in the Company Petition No. 125 / BB / 2025, challenges the impugned order of 25.09.2025, as it was passed in the aforesaid Company Petition, whereby, the interim relief as sought in the Company Petition was declined to be granted in view of the findings, which has been recorded by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order.
Simultaneously, by the same order, the Ld. Tribunal took cognizance to the proceedings in the Company Petition and had recorded that the reply / objections to the Company Petition may be filed, within two weeks by the Respondents.
The question would be, that as to whether, there could be a partial challenge to the order, which has got twin fold implications with regards to the proceedings of the Company Petition. In the first instance, it denied grant of any interim order to the Appellant. Simultaneously, it granted time to the Respondents to file Counter, which means that the Company Petition has been entertained and can be said to be favour of the Appellant.
For the time being, we are deferring to record any finding on the said issue as to what will be the impact of giving challenge to the part of order granting time to file reply / call for counter on the Company Petition.
The impugned order itself displays the fact that, the Appellant had earlier invoked the civil proceedings before the regular Civil Court by filing a Suit being O.S. No. 974 / 2025, in which there was an earlier interim injunction granted under Order XXXIX Rule (1) & (2) of the C.P.C. on 15.06.2025 which was later on vacated by the Ld. Trial Court in the exercise of powers under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of C.P.C. by an order passed on 15.09.2025.
It is seen that contradictory statements have been made during the proceedings of this Company Appeal by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. First, he states that, the Suit has been withdrawn, the suit has been withdrawn, which has been strongly refuted by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent contending thereof that, in fact, the suit has not been withdrawn and it is still pending consideration and his application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. is pending consideration.
In that eventuality, it would be deemed that the subject matter of the Company Petition is yet to be taken up in the Civil Court proceedings. However, this aspect may not have any bearing as far as the issue pertaining to the challenge given to the impugned order is concerned.
Primarily, the Interim Relief, sought by the Appellant in the Company Petition, was that the Respondents be restrained from (i) removing the Appellant from the Directorship of the Company and (ii) from terminating his position as HoD / Consultant of the Hospital of the Respondent No. 1 Company which they had proceeded on by their letter dated 15.09.2025.
It come to our notice that, the Appellant was removed from the Directorship of the Company by the EGM, held on 03.10.2025, but, the decision of EGM itself has not been made as a subject matter of challenge in the principal Company Petition, as it was filed much prior to it on 18.09.2025. However, the said relief has been attempted to be introduced by the Appellant. Later on, filing a Company Application CA No. 186 / 2025 under Section 242(4) of the Companies Act in CP No. 125 / BB / 2025, wherein he has made the prayer to hold the EGM dated 03.10.2025 to be null and void.
We make it clear at this juncture itself that until and unless the decision of the said EGM dated 03.10.2025, removing him from the Directorship of the Respondent No. 1 Company to challenge in the principal Company Petition, there cannot any injunction granted in favour of the Appellant for his continuance as a Director.
Apart from it, if we examine the impugned order, we find that the Ld. Tribunal has observed that the Appellant has indulged in Forum Shopping by initially invoking the Civil jurisdiction under Section 9 of the CPC and getting an ex-parte interim order and then upon vacation of the said Interim Order, has filed the Company Petition alleging an act of filing of a Company Petition alleging an act of Oppression and Mismanagement and that it will amount to be a malicious proceedings.
Be that as it may. At this stage, if the relief sought for by the Petitioner in the instant Company Appeal, is granted, it will be in contradiction to the order of Ld. Civil Court dated 15.09.2025, vacating the Interim Order dated 16.06.2025 granted by it, for the reasons recorded therein.
Since, the Company Petition itself is pending consideration, there cannot be a contradictory Interim Stay Order, as it was solicited by the Applicant in his Company Petition in the relief sought therein, in context of his removal from the Directorship of the Company.
In that eventuality, considering the reason, which has been assigned in the impugned order and also considering the surrounding facts and circumstances, which we have already dealt with hereinabove, we do not think that, it is a fit case to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 164 / 2025 lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. The connected pending Interlocutory Application, if any, would stand closed.